What is the Church's teaching on evolution?

[Matt16_18]

wanerious:

Sorry, you’ll have to be a little more pedestrian and help me out with the language. Can you explain the 3 qualities above?

See: Supernatural Gift, The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VI (the last paragraph explains the preternatural gifts).

Let me know if this article does not make clear what I meant by the preternatural gifts.

 

[carol_marie]

WBB:

I don’t know what to say! First, the theory of evolution says nothing about us crawling up on land from a swamp! I think your priest was absolutely wrong to tell you what he did. The Church has reaffirmed that a truly historical event occurred with Adam and Eve and their fall from grace in the distant past which was not recorded at the time. It is historical but written in mythic language in the bible. The point of the story of the creation in Genesis is not to give a scientific explanation of how we got here, but to give a philosophical and theological reason of why we are here and what is our purpose. The problem comes because we live in a time of great scientific advances, which I believe are a gift from God, however, scientists often have taken this gift and misused it–the sin of pride. I have discovered that a lot of scientists are just “reverse fundamentalists” themselves, for what else could they be since they say, “See, this disproves the bible!” as if it was meant to be a scientific document in the first place. Anyway, you are perfectly correct to believe that the story of Adam and Eve is to be taken literally, because it has a literal meaning. However, you must not abandon its metaphorical meaning or its allegorical meaning in the process. The literal meaning of the creation story is that God created the heavens and earth, and that Adam and Eve were real people. But the greater meaning in the story is the God ordered creation in time and that the creation is good.

So straight up, Catholics are to believe that God created Adam & Eve and placed them in a garden until they ate from the tree of knowledge? You are to believe that ACTAULLY happened? Because all of this science talk is lost on me. I’m just a God-fearing simple minded Christian who takes great comfort knowing that I don’t need to figure it all out because it’s all right there in the Bible starting with, “In the begining God created the heavens and the Earth…” Because you say it’s true, and then you go on to say that it’s also metiphorical and alligorical so is that how you can also say that we evolved from lower life forms? Or maybe you aren’t saying that at all?

Bottom line, I believe the Bible is the true word of God. I believe the Genesis account is literal. I’m willing to give a little and agree that maybe a “day” isn’t the same as our day but I’m NOT willing to accept that Adam & Eve were just figurative and we evolved from lower life forms. If that’s what Catholics believe than the Catholic Church is NOT for me. If you can disregard the beginning of the story, I don’t trust you to uphold the truth of what remains.

 

[WBB]

carol marie:

So straight up, Catholics are to believe that God created Adam & Eve and placed them in a garden until they ate from the tree of knowledge? You are to believe that ACTAULLY happened? Because all of this science talk is lost on me. I’m just a God-fearing simple minded Christian who takes great comfort knowing that I don’t need to figure it all out because it’s all right there in the Bible starting with, “In the begining God created the heavens and the Earth…” Because you say it’s true, and then you go on to say that it’s also metiphorical and alligorical so is that how you can also say that we evolved from lower life forms? Or maybe you aren’t saying that at all?

Bottom line, I believe the Bible is the true word of God. I believe the Genesis account is literal. I’m willing to give a little and agree that maybe a “day” isn’t the same as our day but I’m NOT willing to accept that Adam & Eve were just figurative and we evolved from lower life forms. If that’s what Catholics believe than the Catholic Church is NOT for me. If you can disregard the beginning of the story, I don’t trust you to uphold the truth of what remains.

Yes, Adam and Eve were real people who fell from grace through the sin of pride. By saying that there are metaphorical senses and allegorical senses means only that there is more meaning to the story of creation in Genesis than meets the eye. All I am saying is that the story of the creation in Genesis is not meant to be a scientific explanation. The ancient scribes who wrote the story of creation were not concerned with the physical way that we got here. Suffice it to say, they accepted that we are here, there is a creator, and there is a purpose for humanity. However, that doesn’t mean that there is no historical truth in the story either, because there is. Unfortunately, people try to use the very gifts of science that God has given us to discredit Him. Science is not theology, and theology is not science. There is a line that must be drawn which neither science nor theology may cross. My recommendation to you would be to love the Lord with all your heart and keep your faith. You will be right at home in the Catholic Church, my sister.

 

[PhilVaz]

PaulT << Time to stop compromising with these unbelievers and check out Answers in Genesis website: www.answersingenesis.org/ There you will find sensible, scriptural AND scientific answers to these questions >>

Please, they are more respectable than some creationists (Kent Hovind, etc) I’ll grant you, but still they are young-earthers. I’ll quote the Catechism again (and again and again)

1. Faith and science: “…methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are.” [Vatican II GS 36:1]
2. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers…
3. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin…

I am asking PaulT how he regards the Catechism, is this a compromise with “these unbelievers” ? The scholars and researchers the Catechism refers to are not Ken Ham and Jonathan Sarfati but modern science.

Granted there are some theological objections to evolution (as mentioned in this and many others threads), but to deny all of science the past 200 years and retreat under a young-earth rock (pun intended) is not an option for a Catholic or rational Christian. We need to work on the theology and our interpretations of Genesis, not deny reason and all of science. There are such folks as Glenn Morton, Hugh Ross, Denis Lamoureux, Ken Miller, Keith Miller, etc all the Catholic and Christian folks I’ve mentioned who deal more responsibly with both the science and the theology.

And of course the whole American Scientific Affiliation who are more reasonable than the narrow biblical fundamentalism of AnswersInGenesis

And see this No Answers in Genesis site for the scientific rebuttals along with TalkOrigins of course especially this God and Evolution article

My articles on Evidence for Evolution and an Old Earth, someday I’ll work on the theological objections follow up to this

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

PaulT << and by the way Creationists DO NOT believe that God created each species individually, if your going to have a shot a Creationists, why not at least have the basic integrity to check out their side of the story from THEIR publications >>

And by the way I’ve read PLENTY of creationist stuff. The young-earth (AnswersInGenesis) position is this: God created the basic “kinds” (not species but “kinds”) a few thousand years ago, all those basic “kinds” were destroyed by the global Flood a few thousand years ago save those representative 2 each on the ark, and after that point (micro)evolution took over since God did no more creating after the “six days,” He rested.

So from the 2 of each “kind” on the ark in just a few thousand years we have 2 million species today purely by evolution (or God-directed microevolution). That is giving evolution far more creative power, far more efficiency, and far more rapidity than even the most staunch evolutionists (Gould, Dawkins, Ruse) would even dream. The young-earthers and global flooders believe in evolution far more than these “evolutionists.” Do you have an answer to that?

There I have it exactly right. And I say that is absurd. Young-earthism and a recent global flood is totally out of the question as an “answer” to anything. See also my posts in the Noah and the flood thread.

Phil P

 

[Monarchy]

Chris W:

Rubbish I say! Fanciful theories that are entertaining at best.

That would be creationism

 

[Matt16_18]

PhilVaz:

someday I’ll work on the theological objections follow up to this …

The title of this thread is: “What is the Church’s teaching on evolution?”

How about listing what YOU believe Catholics must believe as doctrine, and why these doctrines pose “theological objections” to evolution as it is commonly understood.

For example, must Catholics believe that Adam and Eve were real people, and that they are the original parents of all of mankind?

Must Catholics believe that before the Fall that there was no death, disease, or decay in the physical world?

Must Catholics believe that Adam and Eve possessed the preternatural gifts of bodily immortality, lack of concupiscence, and infused knowledge, along with the supernatural gift of sanctifying grace?

 

[Hilario]

my formula:

science + philosophy = evelution theory

holy tradition + holy scripture = church teaching

so far that both were opposite angle, nevertheless church never teaches us THEORIES but only TRUTH.

 

[Joan1969]

Hi Phil,

Forgive me if this has already been covered, but I’m just jumping in now. How much have you been exposed to old earth creationism, or alternatively to intelligent design? What are your thoughts on those viewpoints?

Also, how would you define evolution? How might God fit into your definition?

God Bless,
Joan

 

[carol_marie]

Matt16_18:

The title of this thread is: “What is the Church’s teaching on evolution?”

How about listing what YOU believe Catholics must believe as doctrine, and why these doctrines pose “theological objections” to evolution as it is commonly understood.

For example, must Catholics believe that Adam and Eve were real people, and that they are the original parents of all of mankind?

Must Catholics believe that before the Fall that there was no death, disease, or decay in the physical world?

Must Catholics believe that Adam and Eve possessed the preternatural gifts of bodily immortality, lack of concupiscence, and infused knowledge, along with the supernatural gift of sanctifying grace?

Excellent questions, I can hardly wait to read the replies.

 

[Paul.T]

Actually the sun doesn’t ‘torch’ the 2nd law. Its stream of energy is steadily running out and one day it will have no energy left to ‘stream out’ which is what the second law is all about. Even evolutionists believe that one day the entire universe will die a ‘heat death’, the fulfillment of the 2nd law.

 

[PhilVaz]

Matt16 << How about listing what YOU believe Catholics must believe as doctrine, and why these doctrines pose “theological objections” to evolution as it is commonly understood. >>

Discussed that here and several other threads

I don’t know how to deal explicitly, completely and logically with all the theological objections and contradictions to science yet. But to recommend “AnswersInGenesis” is just stupid (PaulT). That’s a denial of science and reason. Not a Catholic option (see the Catechism 159, 283-284 again).

Here are the objections in black and white (and green, yellow, and blue) and the “facts” or dogmas we get from (A) Science, (B) Scripture, and (C) the Church, and the conflicts:

SET OF CONTRADICTIONS

(A) SCIENCE

(A1) Human beings (our species homo sapiens sapiens) go back around 150,000 years or more (Cro-Magnons are dated at least 40,000 years ago and they are the same species as us), and we do not derive our existence from a single individual or a single male/female couple, but we evolved as a population along with the rest of the species in the animal kingdom. The mitochondrial “Eve” and Y-Chrom “Adam” are separated by some 75,000 years or so and they don’t imply we evolved from single individuals. SOURCES: Fossil Hominids: The Evidence for Human Evolution and the book The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey by Spencer Wells (2001) and the book by Glenn Morton which I haven’t finished yet (a lot of footnotes and excellent scholarly documentation there)

(A2) Another one would be evolution works through the death-birth-death-birth process, and there appears to be no place on earth for the Paradise or Garden of Eden spoken of in Genesis – which seems to have no allowance for death before the original sin at least among humans, perhaps also among all animals and all God’s creatures – in the 4.5 billion years of the well-established age of the earth. It certainly seems (according to science) this would be a “mythical” place. Note: we’re not talking about something like heaven or hell, but something on this earth. But the “parallel universe” idea has possibilities since that would not seem to conflict with science, and may be in accord with at least theoretical science (the “Matrix” idea). Just speculation at this point from science here on parallel universes, compared with macroevolution or “common descent” which is extremely well documented

continued in Part 2…

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

(B) SCRIPTURE

(B1) Scripture implies Adam/Eve were the first human persons, and taking Genesis historically and literally, the first human couple goes back to around 4000 to 5000 BC (i.e. about 6000 years ago, see my thread linked at the top). Interpreting Genesis more allegorically would make it easiest to reconcile with the science above. SOURCES: Genesis chapters 1-4 especially the references in Genesis 4 to livestock raising, farming, agriculture, and metal tools which didn’t exist in the Stone Age (before 10,000 BC) but in the Bronze Ages (c. 5000 BC). If we are “serious” about taking Genesis “historically” and “literally” that places Adam/Eve around 4000-5000 BC. Also see some technology through history, and anthropology dates here. Maybe defining precisely what makes us “human” and created in the “image of God” (Genesis 1:27) is probably key to reconciling this one.

(B2) Scripture seems to imply death did not exist in the “Garden of Eden” or “Paradise” and that God is not the author of death. Wisdom 1 actually says “God did not make death” and Hebrews 2 says Satan holds the “power of death” which Christ came to destroy with his own death on the cross and resurrection. Scripture does appear silent though on “animal death” before the Fall, but does seem to support “no human death” before the Fall (Romans 5:12, etc).

(C) Church Dogma

(C1) The Catholic Church does seem to teach that everything in Genesis could be taken figuratively, symbolically, or allegorically – see the Catechism especially paragraphs 390, 396 here – the “talking” snake or serpent, the actual nature of the original sin as eating of a fruit, the “Tree of Life in the middle of Garden,” the creation of man from literal “dust” all could be symbolical, except that Adam/Eve were a literal and historical couple (see all the references in the Catechism to Adam/Eve as “our first parents”), and that they somehow were tempted, and that somehow and in some way the Fall occurred in real space-time history. All human beings today inherit that “original sin” of “our first parents.”

The Church also teaches dogmatically the soul is created by God, that human beings are “body and soul” (cf. Matt 10:28; 1 Thess 5:23; etc) but that much would not be in conflict with science since science can’t detect that, and both the Catechism and at least two Popes (Pius XII, JPII) teach that evolution of the body is (somehow) compatible with Catholic faith, although granted they don’t go into all the specifics and possible theological objections in their encyclicals. That’s up to theologians and scientists I guess to work those out.

(C2) Assuming the “bodily immortality” of Adam/Eve is Catholic dogma, I still have no answer how to reconcile “bodily immortality” before the Fall in light of the science of biological evolution and how it works.

That’s it for now. What I need to do is find (1) 50 Genesis commentaries from all perspectives, (2) around 275 books on this issue outlining the Catholic teaching on this, and (3) maybe a little guidance from God and prayer to help me think about and resolve this, rather than just debate on these boards and consistently berate and bash the young-earth creationists who got it all “figured out” in their simplistic literal interpretations of Genesis and denial of modern science.

Nothing above I haven’t said about 4.5 billion times already in the other 4.5 billion other creation-evolution threads here. Happy Carol Marie? Someday I’ll write that article on the theological objections. There’s a lot of good stuff on the web already though…

Phil P

 

[Ghosty]

(C2) Assuming the “bodily immortality” of Adam/Eve is Catholic dogma, I still have no answer how to reconcile “bodily immortality” before the Fall in light of the science of biological evolution and how it works.

Adam and Eve could have been bodily immortal because of the union with their souls. This wouldn’t have applied to the previous “humans” that science tells us about.

 

[PhilVaz]

<< How much have you been exposed to old earth creationism, or alternatively to intelligent design? What are your thoughts on those viewpoints? >>

Exposed a little bit, I don’t buy the old earth creationism of someone like Hugh Ross (although I certainly accept his reasons for the old age of the earth and universe) who once said on his radio program that Ambulocetus Natans (the walking whale that swims) “was just a different kind of whale that God created.” Here we have God mimicing evolution, and the evidence for the evolution of the whale from land mammals about 50 million years ago has been extremely well documented the past 20 years. No one should deny it. The same with the rest of the vertebrate transitional fossils, some folks posting here are very knowledgeable on that and will give plenty of details.

Intelligent design, I don’t know. I have Behe’s book (who is a theistic evolutionist), and two of Dembski’s books (Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology, and his recent one Uncommon Dissent). Just as there are many “kinds” of creationists, “intelligent design” can encompass everything from young-earth creationism to theistic evolutionists like Behe. They need to sort out the real science from the “cranks.”

I think “intelligent design” has to make its case to the scientific community, not before the public who is largely ignorant of science, which is what they appear to be doing. I include myself in that public also, since I am not a biologist or geologist, etc.

There are now a couple really good critiques of intelligent design “creationism” as some call it, such as (Catholic biologist) Ken Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God (1999), and Forrest/Gross Creationism’s Trojan Horse (2003). I would also recommend the beating Phillip E. Johnson took in the book Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (1999) co-authored by Johnson and Denis Lamoureux (evolutionary creationist) with many contributers. Presents all sides. Excellent.

You wanna say God began the universe at the Big Bang, or created the first cell or the machinery and design in that cell (Behe) seems fine with me, but you wanna say God created Ambulocetus, Pakicetus, Rodhocetus, Dorudon, Basilosaurus, and then the modern whale from “scratch” (all special or direct “creations”), seems a bit far-fetched. Not to mention all the reptile-like mammals and mammal-like reptiles.

Phil P

 

[Matt16_18]

PhilVaz:

Scripture implies Adam/Eve were the first human persons …

Genesis does more than imply that Adam and Eve were the first humans. It is Catholic dogma that Adam and Eve are the first human beings, and that they are the parents of all of mankind.

Scripture seems to imply death did not exist in the “Garden of Eden” or “Paradise” and that God is not the author of death. Wisdom 1 actually says “God did not make death” and Hebrews 2 says Satan holds the “power of death” which Christ came to destroy with his own death on the cross and resurrection.

Scripture is explicit on this point, death is a consequence of sin, and that Christ’s death on the Cross conquered death (dying He restored our life …). It is also Catholic dogma that Adam and Eve possessed the preternatural gift of bodily immortality before the Fall.

Scripture does appear silent though on “animal death” before the Fall, but does seem to support “no human death” before the Fall (Romans 5:12, etc).

You forgot Roman 8:21. There was no death, disease, or decay in the world before the Fall, and it is Catholic dogma that the fallen world will be restored to its original state at the Resurrection of the Dead, a state that is free from the “slavery to corruption”.

Assuming the “bodily immortality” of Adam/Eve is Catholic dogma, I still have no answer how to reconcile “bodily immortality” before the Fall in light of the science of biological evolution and how it works.

Thank you for being honest. It seems to me that your position can be summed up thusly: you accept the science behind evolution, but you don’t know how to reconcile your belief in evolution with Catholic dogma. Doesn’t it seem obvious that a radically different approach to solving this problem has to be considered? If you assume that the universe in its fallen condition is what the creation accounts of Genesis chapt. 1-3 are describing, you will never reconcile Catholic dogma with evolution. And there is no reason to make this assumption, for it is strictly self imposed (for no reason that I can fathom).

There is another faulty assumption that I find that both the evolutionists and the creationists make – they both assume that Paradise no longer exists, even though Genesis says that Paradise was NOT destroyed by the Fall. When it comes to this point, the modern day Biblical literalists suddenly cease being literalists, and the evolutionists never even consider the possibility that Paradise is a real place that still exists.

 

[Paul.T]

Hi Phil

I actually don’t think its too far fetched to believe that the species today desended from those on the Ark. If you can point me to a Bible passage or official Catholic teaching that says otherwise, I would be happy to look it up.
Actually what does boggle the imagination is that all of life on earth is descended from those first little suckers that spontaineously generated themselves in that little pond of ‘pre-biotic’ soup??? (can someone send me the recipe’) down there by the ocean millions or billions of years ago (at least thats what my science teacher taught me as ‘fact’ at school back in the 1960’s)
Today they reckon the first life may have come from outer space (non-directed panspermia) or actually have been ‘seeded’ here by those little green men (directed panspermia).
I notice however that no-one has tried attack my logic on how the theory or evolution attempts to destroy the reason Jesus came to earth (to save us from that ‘original sin’ that never happened in the mythical garden of eden, by the disobedience of the Adam and Eve who never actually (really) existed (if you believe evolution theory)
To all those open minded seekers, I would still suggest to visit the Answers in Genesis Website, and make you own comparisons.
I did many years ago and have grown steadily in my faith ever since.

Regards
Paul T.

 

[Orogeny]

Paul.T:

Hi Phil

I actually don’t think its too far fetched to believe that the species today desended from those on the Ark. If you can point me to a Bible passage or official Catholic teaching that says otherwise, I would be happy to look it up.

So you accept evolution but only after the flood? Do you have a biblical reference for that?

Actually what does boggle the imagination is that all of life on earth is descended from those first little suckers that spontaineously generated themselves in that little pond of ‘pre-biotic’ soup???

It doesn’t boggle my imagination, but I don’t believe that the first life form came into existence spontaneously. I believe God did it and has steered the creation of life through a process we call evolution.

I notice however that no-one has tried attack my logic on how the theory or evolution attempts to destroy the reason Jesus came to earth (to save us from that ‘original sin’ that never happened in the mythical garden of eden, by the disobedience of the Adam and Eve who never actually (really) existed (if you believe evolution theory)

Well, your logic doesn’t hold up because the theory of evolution doesn’t try to do anything, it is a scientific theory. It can’t have an agenda. Many scientists would, however, fit into your theory.

I believe that Adam and Eve existed. I accept the theory of evolution as the best explaination for the massive amount of observations made by biology. Does that falsify your logic?

To all those open minded seekers, I would still suggest to visit the Answers in Genesis Website, and make you own comparisons.
I did many years ago and have grown steadily in my faith ever since.

Regards
Paul T.

About Answers in Genesis. Interesting organization. Did you know that anyone who works for them must sign a statement of belief that basically doesn’t allow them to do scientific work. Specifically, the statement of faith requires them to ignore any evidence that is contrary to their strict biblical literalism. Here is a link to that statement. answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
Read this and answer me this:

1. How can they claim to be scientific if they reject evidence outright base on a pre-concieved conclusion?
2. How does that statement of faith correlate with the teachings of the Catholic Church?
3. Based on the statement of faith, if the issue was catholicism rather than evolution or geology, what do you think their position would be, hmmm?

Peace

Tim

 

[PhilVaz]

Matt16 << Doesn’t it seem obvious that a radically different approach to solving this problem has to be considered? >>

Yeah, I am slowly coming to the conclusion that Genesis chapters 1-11 may be more myth than history. But I’ll do more study…

As for Adam/Eve being the first human beings, that could hold up if you define humanity as someone with both a body and a soul (of course as the Bible and Catholic doctrine would).

But there were certainly “homo sapiens” going back well before Adam/Eve, assuming you would date Adam/Eve as I mentioned (after 10,000 BC), and not millions of years ago. But those homo sapiens before Adam/Eve would not have souls I guess, so they would not be “fully human.” For example, did the Cro-Magnons have souls? Were they before or after Adam/Eve? Sticky questions I know…maybe not that important. I certainly need to do more study here.

PaulT, sorry for coming down so hard. I appreciate the AnswersInGenesis for their site design, navigation and ASP programming skills, but that’s about it.

You are bringing up other subjects such as the origin of life, which as I understand is a separate issue from biological evolution itself. It might be called “chemical” evolution though.

Let’s stick to evolution from the time of Noah (about 5000 years ago?) to now. You believe 2 of each “kind” (since all the rest over the whole globe were destroyed by a Flood) to 2 million species in about 5000 years. Amazing you accept “theistic” microevolution as having far more creative power, far more efficiency, and far more rapidity than Dawkins, Gould, and Ruse combined. I can’t say this argument is original with me though, I stole it from the Hugh Ross book The Genesis Question who argues against the likes of Ken Ham and company. And Yes I know Sarfati has written a recent rebuttal book to Ross, saw it at the local Berean Christian Store.

Phil P

 

[Steve_Andersen]

I still don’t see what the argument is all about

Do people seriously see a conflict between Genesis and evolution?


compared to the Trinity or The Virgin Birth this seems a fairly cut and dry, straight foward issue